text:
Which frequency to contact when arriving at a Class C airport when the tower is open, and which frequency when it is closed?
I came across this question on my PPL exam and I'm not able to properly interpret some pieces.
The question is:

When approaching Lincoln Municipal from the west at noon for the purpose of landing, initial communications should be with:
A) Lincoln Approach Control on 124.0 MHz.
B) Minneapolis Center on 128.75 MHz.
C) Lincoln Tower on 118.5 MHz.

The correct answer is A.
A related question is:

What is the recommended communications procedure for landing at Lincoln Municipal during the hours when the tower is not in operation?

And the answer to this is: "Monitor airport traffic and announce your position and intentions on 118.5 MHz."
Note: I was not provided the sectional chart, only the AFD.
I've copied the relevant lines from the airport chart supplement:

LINCOLN MUNI (LNK) 4 NW UTC-6(-5DT) N40°50.05' W96°45.55' 1218 B S4
FUEL 100LL, JET A TPA--2218(1000) ARFF Index B
COMMUNICATIONS:
CTAF 118.5
ATIS 118.05
UNICOM 122.95
COLUMBUS FSS (OLU) TF 1-800-WX-BRIEF, NOTAM FILE LNK.
RCO 122.65 (COLUMBUS FSS)
APP/DEP CON 124.0 (170°-349°) 124.8 (350°-169°)(1130-0630Z‡)
MINNEAPOLIS CENTER APP/DEP CON 128.75 (0630-1130Z‡)
TOWER 118.5 125.7 (1130-0630Z‡)
GND CON 121.9
CLNC DEL 120.7
AIRSPACE:
CLASS C svc 1130-0630Z‡ ctc APP CON other times CLASS E.

My calculations are as follows: The question states that we're approaching at "noon" and the chart says Lincoln Muni is 6 hours behind UTC. So I subtract the offset (-6) to noon. This gives me $1200 - (-0600) = 1800\text{Z}$.
It was my understanding that when the airport is in towered operation, we contact the control tower (CTAF) as we do in a lot of class D airspaces. Especially since class C requires 2-way communication before entering. The CTAF for Lincoln Muni is in operation between 1130Z to 0630Z. Since 1800Z falls in this interval, I figured CTAF should be contacted and hence my answer was C. Moreover, if we are outside hours of operation, then I thought the standard was to contact UNICOM, which would be frequency 122.95.
But based on the answers to the above question it seems I've understood the complete opposite of the right operations.
My confusion:

Am I miscalculating my zulu time?
Exactly when do I use ctaf vs. app/dep con vs. UNICOM in class C/E airspace? (Sometimes I've seen class E airports have CTAF and unicom frequencies be the same thing, and sometimes they are different.)
When do I use RCO?
If I'm operating between 0630Z and 1830Z, do I only use Minneapolis app/dep con for all communication and avoid CTAF since it is not in operation? Or, is CTAF related requests channeled to a different frequency?

@randomhead, I'm not sure I agree with your recent edit to the title question...  My interpretation of the OP's confusion is in not understanding who controls what airspace.  You did a good job of explaining it in your answer, but I think the emphasis should be on unlinking the idea that a tower has anything to do with class C.  (although your wording doesn't clash with the angle I took in my answer, in fact it actually complements it somewhat, so maybe thanks?!)

@Michael as someone who works at a Class C up/down I am surprised that you think think "a tower has [nothing] to do with Class C." Having an operational tower is an integral component of Class C airspace; Approach provides Class C services in the outer ring and Tower provides those services in the surface area. When the tower is operational the Class C airspace ceases to exist, even if the overlying Approach is still operational; see the current sectional and note that the Class C airspace effective times overlap precisely with the hours the Tower is open.

@randomhead, well maybe not "nothing", but can you state with absolute certainty that no tower controlled airport within C ever shuts down while approach remains open? Because if the Twr/App team is truly integral 100% of the time then why bother listing operating hours separately? Regardless of the answer, the OP seemed to think that tower controls the outer ring of the C. Either that or he didn't remember which ring was the biggest. I'm just trying to discern the root confusion and clarify the separation of responsibility.

And please clarify what you mean by "When the tower is operational the Class C airspace ceases to exist..."

@Michael: Hours are listed separately for clarity. The tower can shut down while Approach remains open, for sure; that happens nightly at LNK. But when the tower is shut down Class C services are not provided; one of the main services provided is "sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport"—which is not possible if the airport is non-towered and pilots self-sequence on the CTAF. Clarification: my typo, of course I meant "when the tower is not operational the Class C airspace ceases to exist."

@randomhead, thanks.  Just to confirm, if tower is closed but approach is open, there is no requirement to establish two way communication with Approach because C has reverted to E based on Tower hours not Approach hours?  What then is the function of Approach control and purpose for remaining open?

@Michael yes, that is how I see it. There would be no point to providing Class C services in the outer ring only; obviously Class C services could not be provided in the inner surface area because there is no Tower to issue landing clearances and provide IFR-VFR separation. Approach would stay open to provide standard Class E non-towered airport services, namely: separation and sequencing of IFR traffic and IFR or VFR overflights of such volume as precludes giving up the airspace to the Center.

@randomhead, thanks for engaging my questions.  Do you happen to have a reference?  I'm ready to adjust my paradigm, but I haven't been able to find anything more than C is in effect "when tower and approach are operating"... (implying both are required, but less definitive that I would like)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Related -- https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/91360/34686

It was my understanding that when the airport is in towered operation, we contact the control tower (CTAF) as we do in a lot of class D airspaces.

You have the wrong understanding.
At a Class D airport, the overlying radar facility (which may be a TRACON or a Center) is responsible for sequencing IFR aircraft only. VFR aircraft may call the Tower controller directly and will be sequenced by the Tower controller as necessary, given the feed of IFR aircraft they are receiving from the overlying approach control.
At a Class C (and Class B) airport, the overlying radar facility is responsible for sequencing all aircraft to the airport, both VFR and IFR (absent standing or case-by-case coordination to the contrary). This means you must initiate contact with the radar facility and follow their instructions; if they tell you to enter a left base, you should enter a left base, and not proceed to standard 45º downwind entry, for example!
If the tower is open and Class B/C airspace is in effect, the radar controller will tell you exactly when you should contact the Tower controller (and the frequency in use, if there is any possibility for confusion). You should not change frequencies without being instructed to. (The same goes for a Class D airport, if you happen to be receiving radar services from the overlying radar facility.)

Your questions:

Am I miscalculating my zulu time?

No, you have it correct. 1200L = 1800Z; both the Tower and the Approach are open, and Class C airspace is in effect.

Exactly when do I use ctaf vs. app/dep con vs. UNICOM in class C/E airspace? (Sometimes I've seen class E airports have CTAF and unicom frequencies be the same thing, and sometimes they are different.)

See this answer to the question "What is the difference between CTAF, UNICOM, and MULTICOM?" Note that your question can very likely be answered by reference to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, and you should always check the Glossary first if you come across a term you don't know. But as a primer:

UNICOM is a non-governmental service generally run by an FBO at an airport. The UNICOM operator can receive your requests for services (fuel, snacks, lavatory, etc). You can use this frequency at a towered or non-towered airport to request such services.
At a non-towered airport, the UNICOM operator can also relay the current weather, suggested runway, and known traffic operating in the vicinity of the airport—but they are not a controlling agency and do not issue clearances or instructions. Full authority and responsibility remains with the PIC to choose a suitable runway, make suitable traffic calls on CTAF, and see-and-avoid other traffic.

The Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) is used by pilots when the Tower is closed, to self-announce position and intentions and, by listening to other pilots' announcements, build a traffic picture in their mind in the absence of a Tower controller. At airports without a tower, it is common for CTAF and UNICOM to be the same frequency; at airports with a part-time tower it is common for CTAF to be what would be the Tower frequency if the Tower were open, and UNICOM to be separate.
Pilot-operated airport and approach lighting is often controllable by clicking the mic three, five, or seven times on one of these frequencies, usually the CTAF.

When you are approaching an airport which has Class C (or B) airspace in effect, you must contact the radar facility listed in the Chart Supplement and shown in the magenta box on the sectional. If the Tower is closed and Class E airspace is in effect, you may contact the radar facility listed in the Chart Supplement to receive radar services, but this is not a requirement. See my answer to your fourth question below. If you are talking to the radar facility and the Tower is open, they will tell you when to contact Tower; if you are talking to the radar facility and the Tower is closed, they will tell you when you are "approved" to change to the advisory frequency (CTAF).

When do I use RCO?

The RCO (Remote Communications Outlet) is a radio transceiver which provides on-the-ground communications capability at a non-towered airport to an ATC or FSS unit. It is used for relaying IFR clearances to departing IFR aircraft, and relaying IFR cancellations from arriving IFR aircraft. As a VFR pilot you would be unlikely to use an ATC RCO, but you might use an FSS RCO to open or close a VFR flight plan.

If I'm operating between 0630Z and 1830Z, do I only use Minneapolis app/dep con for all communication and avoid CTAF since it is not in operation? Or, is CTAF related requests channeled to a different frequency?

Careful... if you are operating between 0630Z and 1130Z you would use the Minneapolis Center frequency for any purpose that you would normally use an ATC frequency when operating in Class E airspace, such as requesting traffic advisories or vectors around hazardous weather. There is no requirement to contact Minneapolis Center on that frequency, however, because the tower is closed and the Class C airspace does not exist.
You will continue to use the CTAF to announce your position and intentions and coordinate with other pilots, just the same as you would use the CTAF at any other non-towered airport, regardless of whether you had been receiving radar services from Minneapolis Center or not. If you had been, at some point (~10NM out) they would have issued you "Squawk VFR, change to advisory frequency approved" at which point your radar services would be automatically terminated and you would change to the CTAF.

NOTE that the current Chart Supplement (accessible from the FAA's digital Chart Supplement search page) is somewhat different from the Chart Supplement information provided in your question; the Class C effective times have changed and ZMP is no longer mentioned as the approach facility when the tower is closed. But having worked through the logic given the question's information, you can similarly look at the current information and determine that everything still holds—with the one exception that Omaha Approach on 124.0 is now the "Class E services" frequency even when the Tower is closed.

Couple clarifying questions. I always fly out of a class D and they require all planes to first contact ground to taxi to the runway. Then they say contact "tower." So then I switch frequencies and contact "tower." When I say "tower" is that the same thing as what you're referring to as "radar facility?" You mentioned they are only required to sequence in IFR. So does that mean it's possible that if they don't have to, they won't sequence me in as a VFR for landing? If so, whats the right procedure to land for VFR?

Also, you used some terms that I'm not exactly sure how to interpret. This is the airport I use: https://aeronav.faa.gov/afd/02dec2021/sw_216_02DEC2021.pdf . The frequency listed as "CTAF" is the frequency we use to contact "tower" when we are at the runway ready for takeoff. This frequency takes care of departing and landing flights (VFR and IFR). In your answer, you mention "CTAF to be what would be the Tower frequency " indicating that it's possible CTAF and Tower are different. I'm a bit confused by this.

Along the same lines, in your answer you mentioned "tower frequency," "CTAF," and "ATC frequency." Using KMYF as an example, I'd say all three frequencies are the same. Am I wrong?

In my answer "Tower" usually means "the controller who issues T/O and landing clearances" (which we in ATC call the "Local" controller, who works alongside the "Ground" and "Clearance Delivery" controllers) but sometimes it means "the tower cab facility where the LC, GC, and CD controllers work." The radar control position is a very separate function; at both LNK and MYF the radar facility is physically separate from the tower cab facility. At other places (like where I work) the two functions are co-located in an "up/down" facility. But the distinction is usually irrelevant to pilots.

At MYF the main Tower (LC) frequency is 119.2. During certain hours a second LC position dedicated to controlling RY 28R is opened and that LC position uses 125.7. At night when the controllers go home pilots can self-announce on the CTAF which happens to be the same frequency as the main LC frequency, 119.2 (this is a very common setup but not guaranteed to be true everywhere). The CTAF does not exist when the tower is operational; CTAF is an aid to pilots at non-towered airports only.

The Tower function is not responsible for sequencing IFR arrivals to the airport; they are only responsible for ensuring proper runway separation between aircraft actually using the runway (and sometimes they are responsible for ensuring airborne IFR separation, if that responsibility is delegated to them by the overlying approach control). At Class D airports the Tower is responsible for responding to and sequencing VFR arrivals but at Class C/B airports that responsibility also belongs to the radar controller instead.

So if you wanted to receive radar services before talking to the Tower controller you could contact SoCal Approach on 124.35 (analogous to the Minneapolis Center frequency in the LNK example). But because MYF is a Class D this is not required; you are allowed to contact Tower directly on 119.2. At Class C/B airports you must not contact the Tower directly; instead you must contact the radar approach controller on the proper frequency and they will sequence you to the airport.

@Jonathan this comprehensive answer to the question "What is a TRACON?" may help clear up your confusion. If you have further questions I'd be happy to answer in chat or you can post another full-bodied StackExchange question!

Your comments literally cleared up everything, thank you so much. Bounty worthy.

Am I miscalculating my zulu time?

Your 1800Z is correct, assuming DST is not in effect. And the “‡” symbol means the times move with DST anyway, so even if the correct time is 1700Z, it wont change the answer.

If I'm operating between 0630Z and 1830Z, do I only use Minneapolis app/dep con for all communication and avoid CTAF since it is not in operation? Or, is CTAF related requests channeled to a different frequency?

I’m going to answer this first since it will lay the foundation for #2.
Both TOWER and APP/DEP CON are shown as open “1130-0630Z‡” per the A/FD, and you are arriving at 1800Z, which falls squarely inside that period. That is what you’d expect at noon local time.
MINNEAPOLIS CENTER is shown as taking over APP/DEP CON overnight at “0630-1130Z‡”, which does not apply to your arrival at 1800Z.
So, the question is whether your initial contact should be with TOWER or APP/DEP CON. The answer is right there under AIRSPACE: when APP/DEP is open, call them first.
You are approaching from the “west” (roughly 270°), which is in the range “170°-349°”, so the frequency to use is 124.0.

Exactly when do I use ctaf vs. app/dep con vs. UNICOM in class C/E airspace? (Sometimes I've seen class E airports have CTAF and unicom frequencies be the same thing, and sometimes they are different.)

CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory Frequency) is what you would use when the tower is closed, making it an uncontrolled field.
UNICOM is for talking to the FBO, such as to advise them you’ll be arriving, request instructions for parking on their ramp, etc.
CTAF and UNICOM are often the same frequency at non-towered fields, but not at towered fields, even when the tower is closed.

When do I use RCO?

You use an RCO to contact FSS for filing/opening/closing flight plans or getting weather updates.

Just because the tower is closed, doesn't mean that approach control is closed. In fact, Lincoln Municipal doesn't have its own approach controller; 124.0 is the frequency for Omaha approach.

If you'll notice on the sectional, the instructions are to "Contact Omaha Approach within 20 NM on 124.0".
One other thing I noticed about your question, CTAF and tower frequency are not necessarily the same thing. Most airports use the same frequency for both, but there's no guarantee of that.
So, to answer your specific questions:

Your UTC calculations are fine.
If the airport has an approach frequency, you always use it when you're approaching the airport unless specifically instructed otherwise by another ATC controller, chart supplement, etc. UNICOM is used to communicate with non-ATC facilities, such as ordering fuel from the local FBO.
RCO's are just another frequency to contact the local Flight Service Station, used for filing flight plans, getting weather briefings, etc.
If there is an approach frequency available, you should generally use when approaching the airport. They will advise you to contact tower (if the tower's open) or switch to the CTAF (if the tower's closed) at the appropriate time. Otherwise, go directly to the tower/CTAF.

Ahh I see. But for the question, we were not provided the sectional chart.

@Jonathan I was editing the question to add some more info when you posted your comment. But, in short, you should always contact approach first unless it's closed, and the hours of operation for approach are not necessarily the same as for the tower. If there are no hours in the supplement, you should assume that it's open 24 hours.

The sectional is not controlling; the Chart Supplement is. R90 is a 24/7 facility but I see no evidence that the sector providing Class C services at LNK is itself operational 24/7. There's a reason the Chart Supplement lists ZMP as the app/dep facility from 0630-1130.

@randomhead When did I say that the sectional is controlling?

You said that, because R90 is open 24/7, you should "always use the approach frequency when approaching the airport" (as indicated on the sectional). As far as I can see from the CS, that is bad advice because, from 0030-0530 local time, that frequency is unmonitored and ZMP owns the airspace. Just because some positions at the TRACON are continuously staffed does not mean that they all are, which is precisely why you must look at the supplement.

@randomhead I realized that I made a mistake in saying it was open 24/7. I've edited that part out. But I never said you should "always" use the approach frequency. I said "If the airport has an approach frequency" to use it. If the facility is closed, then, during that time, the airport doesn't have an approach frequency, does it?

https://i.sstatic.net/iOZ1P.png

In any case, OP's question is in a historical vacuum; referencing the current sectional and current Chart Supplement (which have different times and do not mention a ZMP frequency) is not helpful. The point of the question is to recognize when you should and should not contact the "normal" Class C frequency based on the information given in the question. (Pointing out that the question's givens do not match the current Chart Supplement would serve as a reminder to always check one's sources.)

Incorrect answer. Tower is not closed at noon.

@randomhead https://i.sstatic.net/qF6gD.png

That is obviously a typo on OP's part; they meant to ask about 0630Z-1130Z, lining up with the time when ZMP has the airspace.

@randomhead Better?

@randomhead The question says he’s arriving at “noon”.

@Stephen: one of the questions posed to OP says they arrive at noon; another question posed to OP (OP's question #4 posed to us) says they arrive when the tower is closed. HiddenWindshield: marginally better, but you still don't make it clear enough that the approach frequency does not exist at certain hours of the day (according to the given information).

Short answer:
Contact the controlling authority for the airspace you would like to enter.
That might sound oversimplified, but let me explain.  From your answer it is apparent that you are very thorough, but I think you may have gotten buried in the extraneous details and zulu math of the question.  It might help if you instead look at this spatially, and/or chronologically.
What I mean by that is look at the chart and ask yourself which airspace you will encounter first.  (I realize one wasn’t provided in this question, but at some point you should be able convert your digital rote memory of the airspace diameters into a mental picture)  If you are approaching the airport from say 20 miles away, and there is a 10 mile range ring of Class C airspace you will encounter, you had better talk to the owner of that airspace BEFORE you get to the owner of the 5 mile ring for the Class D airspace, right?  Otherwise you will have trundled through at least 5 miles of radar controlled airspace without talking to anyone!  (I trust you remember that two way communication is required to enter Class C…)
Think of the approach controllers as the first gatekeeper, their radar can see further than the binoculars of the people in the tower, so their range ring extends further and it only makes sense that you should call them first.  Approach controls Charlie, Tower controls Delta.  In your example the tower and approach hours are the same, so it isn't an either/or question.  You will talk to both - approach first, and they will hand you off to tower as you get closer.
Having said that, 10 miles is the minimum and isn’t really a lot if the airport is busy with IFR fast movers, so most approach facilities really like to be called at around 20 miles.  (the “undepicted” outer part of the Class C)
Now, there are a couple other small points in your question that you didn’t ask directly about, but I think bear mentioning.
First, “under” class C generally implies a satellite airport beneath the outer/upper shelf that is 5-10 miles from the center and does NOT extend to the surface.  In other words, not in class C. Since LNK is the main airport serviced by the C, and since C goes to the surface in the middle, I edited your title question to substitute “in” for “under”.
Second, you are using the acronym CTAF in the context of the Control Tower.  [e.g. “we contact the control tower (CTAF)…”]
CTAF stands for Common Traffic Advisory Frequency, it is not the control tower or any controlling entity.  It is just a frequency.  Although in many cases like this the frequency is the same, the purpose is actually almost opposite; at least in terms of who does the controlling:

If the tower is open, you contact the tower on tower frequency, and they control the traffic.
If the tower is closed, you contact other traffic on the common traffic advisory frequency, and work things out amongst yourselves.  (i.e. you broadcast your position and intentions to enhance the awareness of other pilots in the pattern just as you would at a non-towered airport.)


text:
Deferred Medical
I applied for a first class medical over six months ago that was deferred due to a few medical problems I’ve had in the past,Some stemming from early  childhood. They included a surgery from when I was 9 years old and also thyroid disease that I developed in late teenage years. A side effect of the thyroid disease was anxiety/depression that they also want to know about.The FAA requested medical records  on all these problems but I wasn’t able to track them down in time and had my current PCP write a letter stating everything was fine based on what I told him I could remember.
My questions are can I still submit the medical records that I did find?… and also being that I’ve been off and on anti depressants (currently off) will this make them deny my first class medical?

I think you should better reword he question title

@PeymanMohamadpour to what?

You may refer to this page

Your edit changed not only the title, but the entire question, and by doing so you made the existing answer look like it is non-responsive to the question. That's discouraged here. Please roll back the edit to the question text. If you'd like to ask a new question, please feel free to do that.

I rolled it back.

The FAA wants all your records, and a letter from your PCP is very unlikely to be enough. Call the AMCD or your regional flight surgeon and ask for an extension to get your records. If you send incomplete records, expect to wait many months just to receive a letter asking for more records. If you've ascertained the records no longer exist that is also something to talk with the AMCD or your RFS about.
Being on and off antidepressants is not a good sign, but nobody can answer what the FAA will think without seeing all your medical records. This question should be directed to your AME. Some information on antidepressants is available here.

The answer above sounds right. On top of that, you can apply for SODA which is where you can go though a tedious process to prove to the FAA that you can indeed fly safely even though you don’t meet the medical requirements. Not sure of all the details behind it but this may be of interest to you.

@TaylorB SODAs are specifically for conditions that are expected to be static. Colorblindness or a missing limb for example. I don't think it would be possible to get one issued for anxiety or depression.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Class D under Class C but through another Class D?
New Pilot here, just planning a VFR trip to KGMU but not sure of the transition rules here. I know flight following will take care of the Class C but who do I need to talk to about the other Class D? Who all do I need to talk too and in what order? Maybe I’m overthinking this one but any help would be great.

Question could use a little clarification.  You are planning to depart from KGMU (Class D airspace), and plan to fly through KGYH Class D airspace, and want to know who you need to talk to?  Also you mention Class C (KGSP) -- do you actually plan to climb into the Class C airspace, and if so, do you plan to that before or after entering the KGYH Class D airspace?  It seems unnecessarily complicated to plan to enter both the KGYH Class D airspace and the KGSP Class C airspace, but your question as written seems to hint that that is your plan.  Can you clarify?

(Also, your contention that "flight following will take care of the Class C" may not be correct.)

Sorry flying from KDNL to KGMU. KGSP outer shelf is only 2200 ft on the southwest corner.

@quietflyer  Why do you say that flight following wouldn't take care of the Class C?  If he's talking to ATC, they'll take care of whatever coordination is required, or else advise him what he needs to do or whom to call.  What scenario do you foresee where a pilot would need to take actions beyond what the controller who's doing flight following would do?

On the pilot side the rules are unambiguous. 14 CFR 91.129 (c)(1) requires that you establish two-way communication with "the ATC facility providing air traffic services" before you enter the Class D airspace, unless otherwise authorized in accordance with 91.129 (a). 14 CFR 91.130 (c)(1) requires the same two-way communications prior to entering Class C airspace.
So if you are not on flight following with Greer Approach, you would remain below the Class C shelf (2200' MSL to the south of GSP) and establish contact with Donaldson Tower:

Donaldson Tower, Skyhawk 12345 is ten miles south-southeast at two thousand, transitioning to land Greenville Downtown.

Donaldson Tower will respond with your callsign—which permits you to enter their airspace—and any instructions they might need to issue you. When appropriate, they will either tell you to "Contact Greenville Tower 119.9" or "Frequency change approved." At that point you contact Greenville Tower.
However, as the comments have mentioned, flight following (i.e. radar services from the Greer Approach controller) will be beneficial to you, for three reasons.
First, 91.129 and 91.130 require that you establish communications with "the ATC facility providing air traffic services." This is not always the tower! For example, the hosts of the Opposing Bases podcast work at a Class C approach control that has a satellite Class D tower. They have mentioned that they, the approach controllers, actually own a significant portion of the Class D on the arrival side of the satellite airport—the tower is not the facility providing air traffic services in that part of the airspace, so you would not be fulfilling your 91.129 requirement by contacting them! Another example is the satellite airports in the Boston region; the chart there has a note which says "Aircraft requesting to transit the Class D airspace at or above 2500 MSL contact Boston Approach" even though the surface area goes up to 2600.
Second, if you are talking to a radar controller, the rules they follow tell them to coordinate your surface area transit—or terminate your services—prior to you entering the surface area. There is a Note which says "The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility"—but this Note is not, of course, contained in 14 CFR 91.129, so it would still behoove you to confirm that they have coordinated:

Approach, verify Skyhawk 345 may transit the Donaldson Class Delta?

If they say yes, then you may assume that Donaldson Tower—which is "the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area"—has authorized your being in the airspace despite not establishing communications with them. The authorization is relayed to you by the Approach controller.
Being on flight following also allows you to stay higher for longer because you do not have to avoid the Charlie. This is good because there are some relatively high obstructions in that area, like the 1988' and 1849' towers.

Thank you so much this answer all of my questions !,

Good answer and +1 for opposingbases.com - they discuss this kind of topic in the weekly podcast. I listened to episodes while driving to the airport during my Instrument training and found all their content very useful and often instantly applicable.

@user2070305 just mind those penguins.

Arguably, if Approach is “the facility providing air traffic services” (in the form of VFRFF), then it doesn’t matter who “owns” that airspace.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How many fastener can an aircraft lose?
I see this GIF animation a few times then I wonder how many fastener can an aircraft lose before it becomes dangerous. I’m sure losing one wouldn’t be an issue due to safety margin built into every component of aircraft. But how many fastener?

Original link https://www.gifng.com/wtf/65633/

There is no straight answer as it depends on the individual fastener and specific aircraft in question. Pressurized aircraft create a whole new set of issues.
In some cases you can lose a whole bunch of them and even lose a full panel without issue as was the case on Delta  2412. While in other cases single bolts or fasteners are far more critical. Fasteners on stationary parts wont create the same imbalance issues as say, losing a fastener from a prop spinner or the such. Fasteners coming loose and being ingested into engines or other critical components can be an issue which is similar to the issue with the Concorde incident.

It depends on aircraft type. Normally missed permanent fasteners are not allowed when found. But in some areas it is allowed to operate A/C with limited quantity of missing fasteners for limited time period (for example belly fairings on T7).

Once flew in a Dak. As we walked round the back I saw that a row of elevator skin rivets along the trailing edge had been replaced by twisted wire. Said nothing to my Mum, who is terrified of flying. Many years later we found that each had noticed and kept quiet for the same reason. One assumes the (perfectly reputable) airline were not breaking regulations.


text:
What is this pilot doing before boarding his F-15?
In this video ...
Fast takeoff of an F-15 Eagle from an air base in Iceland
... what is this one thing the pilot does on arrival, before climbing the ladder?
It looks like he's putting something, about the size of a video cassette, in a panel.

I think there's a brief view of the same when driving:

Thanks. What do you think it is? The cassette shown at time 7:17 of that video looks like more like an audio cassette. But I'd forgotten it may be 50-year-old technology. And the flight plan is something that would plausibly arrive with the pilot.

It is a video casette containing a King Schools episode related to the flight the pilot is about to take. The video will play on the radar screen by selecting the "ALT VID KNG" mode on the master switch. The reason the tape deck is not placed in the cockpit is that during the development phase of this system, there was a malfunction that lead to the tape being flung out of the cassette. Pilot got so badly tangled up in it he had no other choice than to eject. Emergency crew spent hours cutting him free, luckily no permanent injuries were sustained.

It could be either for mission data recording or data transfer. If someone knows where the corresponding units are located.

@Jpe61 Or just some music, like in Iron Eagle

That's the door for the video tape recorder.
Referenced here, on an F-15 forum:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/F-15-scramble-training-in-Iceland/5-2469550/
That location changed between F-15 versions. IIRC, our F-15C/D at Soesterberg was in the cockpit.

Is it actually limited to video? Can't audio and data be recorded too?

@mins - That one is video, and probably audio.. Capturing the HUD, and a front facing vid camera. The video in the post was from an F-15C at Keflavik Iceland, long before comprehensive solid state capture as in your link. Keflavik stood down in the mid 90's. It was literally video tape, about the same size as a VHS.

It looks distinctly smaller than VHS, more like Betamax.

This is the camera (or at least one possible camera): https://www.photosonics.com/f-15cd_msip_hud_camera.htm.  I think there's a bit on the older model AVTR here: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/424/0000/Recent-Advances-In-Airborne-VideoData-Recording/10.1117/12.936195.short but I don't have access.  Budget for replacing them with digital units https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY10/AFD-090511-091.pdf?ver=2016-08-23-091915-880 (page 206/210)

One doc suggests that (again some models) may have had the photo-sonics SVCR-V301, which if https://www.parttarget.com/5836-01-307-3865_5836013073865_SVCR-V301-A.html/-03CBA3A4-046B-4318-B423-162343E4730E is correct was in fact a (S?)VHS tape.

If it's a tape recorder why on earth would it be the pilot's job to put the tape in?

@ChrisW - Because it is also his job to take it out at the end of the flight, and go to debrief with it. His flight, his recording.


text:
Why does the ACS forbid activation of the stall warning during slow flight?
In section VII. Slow Flight and Stalls, page 54 of the Private Airplane ACS, the Skills section contains in part

$$\begin{array}{l|l}
\bf{Skills} & \text{The applicant demonstrates the ability to:} \\ \hline
\textit{PA.VII.A.S2} &
\begin{align}
\text{2. } & \text{Establish and maintain an airspeed, approximately} \\
& \text{5-10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane} \\
& \text{is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating} \\
& \text{a stall warning.}
\end{align}
\end{array}$$

During my primary training and when I took the practical test under the old Practical Test Standards, slow flight was conducted at minimum controllable airspeed with the stall horn blaring.
What are the motivation and supporting data behind this change to slow flight strictly above $V_{MC}$?

I attended the ACS webinar on June 25th.  This is the response from Christopher Morris at the FAA.  You can also read the FAQ on the FAA website.

If the pilot recognizes the stall warning and promptly makes an appropriate correction or airspeed adjustment, a momentary activation of the stall warning horn does not constitute unsatisfactory performance on the maneuver. As with other standards, the problem would arise from continual deviation from the standard, lack of correction, and/or lack of acknowledgment. The goal is to ensure that the applicant does not perform the maneuver with the stall warning activated.
The certification standard in 23.207 states for airplane certification testing, the stall warning must “begin at a speed exceeding the stalling speed by a margin of not less than 5 knots and must continue until the stall occurs.” This is the primary reason the suggested range above stall speed has moved from “3-5 knots” to “5-10 knots without stall warning activation.” The certification standard for the stall warning does play a role in the airspeed selection for the maneuver, and stall warning activation will vary from one airplane to the next, so it is important for the applicant to select an airspeed where the stall warning should not activate except on a momentary basis (e.g., due to turbulence).
The PTS standard for maneuvering during slow flight was for the applicant to establish and maintain “an airspeed at which any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power, would result in an immediate stall.”
The current version of the Airplane Flying Handbook says slow flight should be performed at “the slowest airspeed at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without indications of a stall—usually 3 to 5 knots above stalling speed.” The guidance has always intended for there not to be a stall warning, and that is consistent with slow flight guidance published in AC 120-111. However, the 3-5 knot range given does not pair well with the part 23 requirement for a stall warning (§23.207). It is not practical to maneuver in that airspeed range and not have the stall warning, which is an indication of a stall.  The standard in the PTS also implies being right above the critical AOA, which means the stall warning would be activated. This result does not align with the guidance, or with what the FAA advocates. Specifically, the FAA does not advocate intentional disregard for a stall warning while maneuvering.
The purpose of teaching slow flight is to ensure that the pilot understands how the airplane responds with less airflow over the flight control surfaces. Since airplanes are operated at low airspeeds and high angles of attack during the takeoff/departure and approach/landing phases of flight, it is essential for pilots to learn the airplane cues and how to operate the airplane in this state. Regardless of airplane type, a pilot does not need to be just below the critical AOA to experience the desired characteristics and achieve the slow flight objectives. These objectives can be accomplished without deliberately activing the stall warning through flight just below the critical AOA. We want to influence the behavior and practices the pilot will follow outside the training environment. Therefore, with the exception of performing a full stall maneuver, a pilot should always perform the stall recovery procedure when the stall warning is activated.
With respect to guidance, the change to AC 61-67 published just prior to the final decision on the AFH wording change, which drove the FAA’s decision to modify this ACS Task element. We are working on another change to ensure the AC will align with the AFH and the ACS and be consistent with AC 120-111. To further explain these changes, we intend to publish a SAFO that is now in formal coordination.
Teaching what an airplane will do at the critical AOA is part of stall training and should be addressed in that context. You allow someone to ‘ignore’ the warning in one narrow instance – as part of stall training. The pilot can still learn what happens at that point – but as part of stall training and learning the proper recoveries – not as part of slow flight.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What are typical insurance premium reductions for renters and owners as they earn instrument and commercial tickets?
I hear general claims that insurance companies dislike VFR-only pilots and that premiums fall as airmen move up in hours, ratings, and certificate levels.
What are the hard data from the actuarial tables? How do the profiles compare for owners versus renters?

(This is a US-based answer.)
There's no statistical information that I could find out there about this, but aircraft type, total hours, hours in type, age, previous claims etc. are all factored into the premium as well, so it's hard to make a simple comparison based on one variable. And as AOPA says:

Not all carriers have the same guidelines for when they will offer a
  premium reduction.

But having said all that, it looks like an instrument rating is the key qualification to get. AOPA's insurance FAQ recommends it:

Typical actions you can take to reduce your rates include:
[...] Obtain an instrument rating.

I guess you could go through AOPA's quote process multiple times with different data to see what premiums come out, but just calling them is probably easier.
Avemco is a well-known aviation insurer and they're more specific. The wording is bit awkward but it looks like an instrument rating reduces your premium with them by 10%:

Q: Is there any type of additional training that would lower my premiums?
  A: [...] obtain an upgraded certificate or Instrument
  Rating and you become eligible for the full 10% savings.

They don't say what an "upgraded certificate" means, but if you're one of the few people who have a commercial certificate but no instrument rating then perhaps that would count. Other insurance companies also say that advanced ratings can reduce your rates (here, here).
Finally, I can add a couple of comments from personal experience. I have AOPA renter's insurance and it's flat rate: your certification and experience don't matter at all. Second, when I was looking for life insurance, having an instrument rating cut my premiums a lot but it was a while ago and I can't remember the exact numbers. I do remember that they were reluctant to even consider me without it.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is any single-axis autopilot for a light piston single certified for unusual-attitude recovery?
Recovery from unusual attitudes is required during primary training and must be demonstrated during the checkride. In the case of an incapacitated or disoriented pilot, will activating a single-axis autopilot in ROL mode while in an unusual attitude safely recover straight-and-level flight?

A lot of autopilots have a "straight and level" button which can marginally recover from an unusual attitude. You have to be aware though that the autopilot isn't a pilot, and its "recovery" methods may make the situation worse, or be unable to recover from all attitudes, especially if altitude is not permitting.

Also I think a disoriented pilot may be able to push this button and turn the autopilot on, however if in the case of an incapacitated pilot, its doubtful a non pilot rated passenger could activate the autopilot and select that mode without some training. Some autopilots also have an 180° turn button that holds altitude for inadvertent flight into IMC.

Maybe I'm reading your question too literally, but a single-axis autopilot couldn't recover to straight and level flight because that would require altitude hold in addition to roll control. Or did I just misunderstand what you mean?

You would need a three-axis autopilot. The nature of an unusual attitude is that it needs corrections around all three axes.

Generally, no.  There's always an exception out there someplace, but I've never seen an autopilot that is advertised as being able to recover from an unusual attitude situation.  Depending on exactly what the attitude is, the mode of the autopilot, and its specific capabilities & mechanical limitations, you MIGHT be able to get out of an unusual attitude that way, but I wouldn't count on it.  And it's certainly never taught that way anywhere that I've been... you're taught to recognize-confirm-recover by flying out of the unusual attitude yourself, rather than relying on the automation to do it for you.  (In fact, if you get into an unusual attitude, chances are decent that either mismanagement of or a failure in the automation contributed to getting you there!)
Given the wide range of possibly unusual attitudes & aggravating circumstances (i.e. engine out, rudder out-of-trim, shifting or shearing winds, structural damage, failed pitot/static instruments, failed gyro, etc etc), I'd be very surprised if any manufacturer would ever claim that their autopilot could be relied upon for this task.

The Cirrus autopilot (an Avidyne DFC90) is advertised as doing exactly that. But it isn't single-axis, of course.

Very cool -- hadn't seen that capability before.  I wonder what the certification regime was in order to get that capability proven and approved?  I wonder also what sort of envelope that capability is good for (inverted + nose high, for instance).

The documentation says it works from an "arbitrary" starting position, but it's only been demonstrated up to +/-60 bank. Although at that point, I think the general idea in a Cirrus is to pop the chute.


text:
What made the 2707 so superior?
A book I have (Boeing, Planemaker to the World) includes how many orders and planes received of all of Boeing's major models as of the date it was printed. It said the 2707 (Boeing's failed SST) got 125 orders. That seems a lot, compared to the very small amount of concordes and TU-144s that were ever made. What made the 2707 so superior that 125 of them were ordered?

Those weren't true "orders," they were "options." In the aviation industry it's common for airlines to speculatively pay for an order slot, which guarantees them the option to purchase the aircraft at a certain price at a later date. It's quite common for a lot of those options to not be exercised. Concorde also had a large number (~75 I think) of options sold, the vast majority of which were canceled.

The plane was designed for a US funded competition which it won, after it would get 1 million dollars in funding for further development which automatically means that the 2707 would be the cheaper plane to buy and that it had the US Government Stamp of Approval. This also meant that there were political reasons to commit to buy one of them.
The reason it won that competition is because it was slightly less loud, slightly more efficient and more technologically advanced than its competition.

Never to have been built could have a lot to do with that superiority. All designs start with high hopes and great specs, and only later, when reality interfers, the numbers have to be revised, mostly downwards.
The other factor is size. Being much larger, it could fly more efficiently than the smaller Concorde and Tu-144.


text:
Where to get flight dynamics for a flight sim model?
Once, a while ago, I tried to create a Flight Simulator X model for an aircraft that I wanted a model of, but was soon overwhelmed by having to guess so much of the flight dynamics. Is there somewhere where I could get detailed information about the flight dynamics of aircraft without contacting the manufacturer, a pilot, or having the plane itself to run tests on? I mean for things like drag at different mach, drag coefficient created by the landing gear, lift coefficient created by the flaps, detailed stuff about the engines, etc.

Simulating models isn't an easy task and for some aircraft, this sort of information simply isn't available publically. When I'm modelling aircraft for various flight simulators, sometimes it's just a matter of emprical testing.

It depends on how precise flight dynamics model you want. Some simulators have simulation engine that can estimate the parameters from dimensions and layout, weights and several performance points. I don't know whether FSX does though.

@JanHudec I don't believe FSX does that.  X-plane does however and really any new sim modeling should be done in X-Plane as FSX is a dead platform.

FSX is actually pretty good (i use it a lot), and I've heard that it actually has better flight dynamics for many large (jet) civil aircraft.

There's at least one FSX model where the manufacturer provided data and actively was engaged in development of the simulator version. That's Flight1's ATR addon.

So you're looking for aerodynamic parameters, right? Flight dynamics would usually be the motion equations, transformation matrix between body axes and earth axes, etc.

@Koyovis yeah, I'm no longer working on this, lol

Ah yeah, sorry for posting 3 years late.

Unfortunately I have no experience with how FSX models aircraft, but at a guess, it's model requires extensive experimental data from a real aircraft to truly get the right parameters.
And that's something no hobbyist is likely to be able to do. For that matter, it's pretty difficult for a pilot to do, since actually recording the relevant data is difficult, and some of what you need to know requires doing things with the aircraft you probably shouldn't do in most circumstances.
X-Plane's flight model and aircraft creation tool is far more forgiving. You still end up having to guess a lot of parameters, but they are generally less critical to basic handling.
All you really need to get a decent flight model out of X-Plane is a good set of reverence pictures, an eye for detail (so your model matches the geometry properly), and ideally the correct airfoil profiles and engine specifications.
(Primarily the thrust and power)
For the most part, good reference models and diagrams, and the information you'd find in the Pilot's operating handbook is enough to create a decent flight model in X-Plane.
It certainly won't be perfect, and you'll probably have to tune it, but it's a much easier task than getting that data needed for an FSX model.
I have the good fortune of being a student pilot, and as such I decided to attempt a model in X-Plane, and found that while it was far from perfect, (and needs a lot of improvement to be a 'good') model, it's behaviour was much closer to the real aircraft that I fly regularly than I was ever expecting given how much I had to guess.
I had to guess everything from the aileron deflection angles to the propeller geometry, wing airfoil choices and more, and still the resulting model was only slightly off from the real thing insofar as I know how the real aircraft flies.
I guess that's not an overly helpful answer in a direct sense for an FSX flight model, but I fear it just isn't going to be at all easy to find the information you need to make a flight model that isn't fundamentally broken in FSX, let alone accurate.
X-Plane is just far simpler to work with when you don't have a lot of information...
Whether that's worth the downsides of X-Plane (especially the consequences of switching if you already have a heavy investment in FSX), I don't know.
But it's worth keeping in mind if you are particularly fond of amateur aircraft design.
(It's even plausible to create fictional designs in x-plane for which no real-world data could ever exist in theory, and still get a good idea of how such a design likely would fly if it did exist.)
As for FSX potentially having better flight models in some cases? Maybe. But this is likely going to be the flight models of expensive add-on aircraft models that were made with the help of the manufacturer and pilots qualified to fly the real aircraft.
That's not going to help you any if you don't have access to those kinds of resources.
A hand-tuned model matched to exact real-world data may well work better than a physics based model if you have good source data.
But if your source data is lousy (as it is for most of us unfortunately), then the physics based model will be much more reliable most of the time...

Welcome to Aviation Stack Exchange! Good first answer!

Decent aerodynamic (wind tunnel) data is available courtesy of NASA / NTRS.
Windtunnel derived aerodynamic data sources is where I have collected together detailed data for the B747, F-14 and F-15.
B747 Aerodynamic data

NASA CR-1756 The Simulation of a Large Jet Transport Aircraft Volume I: Mathematical Model, C. Rodney Hanke
March 1971
D6-30643 THE SIMULATION OF A JUMBO JET TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT - VOLUME 11: MODELING DATA, C. Rodney Hanke and Donald R. Nordwall September 1970

F-14 Aerodynamic data
These are the data sources for my F-14 for FlightGear

F-14A Aerodata plots F-14A Aerodata plots from AFWAL-TR-80-3141. These are in the TR; and don't reflect the JSBSim model as that has more data; this is just what I made for reference whilst modelling.
Richard Harrison
AFWAL-TR-80-3141, Part I Investigation of High-Angle-of-Attack Maneuver-limiting factors, Part I: Anaylsis and simulation
Donald E. Johnston, David G. Mitchell, Thomas T. Myers
1980
AFWAL-TR-80-3141, Part III: Investigation of High-Angle-of-Attack Maneuver-limiting factors, Part III: Appendices aerodynamic models
Donald E. Johnston, David G. Mitchell, Thomas T. Myers
1980
NASA TN D-6909 DYNAMIC STABILITY DERIVATIVES AT ANGLES OF ATTACK FROM -5deg TO 90deg FOR A VARIABLE-SWEEP FIGHTER CONFIGURATION WITH TWIN VERTICAL TAILS
Sue B. Grafton and Ernie L. Anglin
1972
NASA-TM-101717 Flutter clearance to the F-14A Variable-Sweep Transition Flight Expirement Airplane - Phase 2
Lawrence C. Freudinger and Michael W. Kehoe
July 1990
N89 - 20931 APPLIED TRANSONICS AT GRUMMAN
W. H. Davis

F-15 Aerodynamic data sources
These are the data sources / references for F-15 for FlightGear. The FDM is based on the windtunnel derived aerodynamic data found in (AFIT/GAE/ENY/90D-16).

Richard Harrison, rjh@zaretto.com: F-15 Aerodynamic data from (AFIT/GAE/ENY/90D-16); CG 25.65%, ZDAT/AED/2014/12-2, December, 2014: F-15 Aerodynamic data extracted from AFIT/GAE/ENY/90D-16
Robert J. McDonnell, B.S., Captain, USAF: INVESTIGATION OF THE HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK DYNAMICS OF THE F-15B USING BIFURCATION ANALYSIS, AFIT/GAE/ENY/90D-16, December 1990: ADA230462.pdf
Richard L. Bennet, Major, USAF: ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF REMOVING NOSE BALLAST FROM THE F-15 EAGLE, AFIT/GA/ENY/91D-1, December 1991: ADA244044.pdf
DR. J. R. LUMMUS, G. T. JOYCE, O C. D. O MALLEY: ANALYSIS OF WIND TUNNEL TEST RESULTS FOR A 9.39-PER CENT SCALE MODEL OF A VSTOL FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT : VOLUME I - STUDY OVERVIEW, NASA CR-152391-VOL-1 Figure 3-2 p54, October 1980: 19810014497.pdf
Frank W. Burcham, Jr., Trindel A. Maine, C. Gordon Fullerton, and Lannie Dean Webb: Development and Flight Evaluation of an Emergency Digital Flight Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an F-15 Airplane, NASA TP-3627, September 1996: 88414main_H-2048.pdf
Thomas R. Sisk and Neil W. Matheny: Precision Controllability of the F-15 Airplane, NASA-TM-72861, May 1979 87906main_H-1073.pdf
Aircraft handling data

NT-a3A, F-104A, F-4C, X-15, HL-10, Jetstar, CV-880M, B-747, C-5A, and XB-70A.

Robert K. Heffley and Wayne F. Jewell, NASA CR-2144 AIRCRAFT HANDLING QUALITIES DATA,
December 1972

JSBSim implementations of the aerodynamics models can be viewed in my GitHub repository F-14 and F-15. These are both useful references in how to implement an aerodynamic model using JSBSim.
Where no such data is available OpenVSP using VSPAero is a useful tool for generating coefficients from geometry.
Any computational method (including OpenVSP and X-Plane) will not be able to attain the accuracy gained from windtunnel measurements, especially as you reach the edge of the flight envelope. All FAA Level D simulators use wind tunnel derived aerodyanmic data packages for this reason.

I'm not sure if this will help you but check here.

As it stands, this answer is a little bit low quality since it contains only a link to information. Can you please include at least an example from the data referenced, or some further explanation?

As Qantas94 notes in his comment, there is little you can do, detailed model of aicrafts are a valuable piece of information, so you must be ready to speand quite a lot of money, either by buying one or by developing your own via an extensive flight campaign and data postprocesing.
If you want to settle for a less detailed/precise model, there is DATCOM (also available within Matlab) that, given some geometrical details about the aircraft is able to estimate the main aerodynamic parameters. If I am not mistaken, the Roskam parameters reported in mikolchon's answer are obtained via DATCOM.

NASA/NACA is a great source of course. Or contact a university with a course in aeronautical engineering. Cranfield has a good uni. Delft published a book called Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, by E Torenbeek, in English. It's on Scribd as well.

I havn't worked with it yet, but maybe this utility can help you.

Unfortunately JSBSim has that same problem. You have to key in tables of lift and drag coefficients and engine thrusts and such. It has the "aeromatic" model generator, but those are very rough estimations. When you only have performance data and reasonably detailed drawings the other FDM available in FlightGear, YASim is better, since it uses more precise layout and solves the lift and drag coefficients to match set performance. Yasim seems to be FlightGear specific, but X-Plane has similar FDM.

It should be possible to calculate JSBSim model with DATCOM though, which should provide more reasonable estimates.


text:
What does "traffic in position..." phrase mean?
Recently heard the phrase "traffic in position..." issued by controller to one of the pilots, just wondering, what could it mean?

What is the context?  Where did you hear this?

@Simon, I was listening very busy hour on LiveATC of my local airport (LVK), where tower had many departure and arrival aircrafts at the time. I just caught the phrase, but did not get the pilot intention :(, that is where my question come from.

"Traffic in position" is a phrase to let the next aircraft inbound to a runway know that another aircraft is in lined up and waiting for departure on that runway. This procedure is used to line an aircraft up on the runway (usually right after the previous arrival crosses the runway threshold, or previous departure begins their takeoff roll), to have them ready to go, when the previous arrival/departure clears the runway. At airports (in the US), without ASDE-X (a system to track airplanes on the ground), the tower controller isn't supposed to clear the next aircraft to land, until they have issued the takeoff clearance to the aircraft holding on the runway. ASDE-X locations can clear aircraft to land, as long as certain conditions in the ASDE-X equipment are working properly.

This all sounds very ambiguous and dangerous.  Do you have any citations?  Is this a US only thing?

All honesty, no it's not dangerous. If you have ~6 miles between arriving aircraft you can usually get one aircraft out in between each arrival(experience), but only if you're getting the departure on the runway ready to go as soon as the first arrival clears, the next arrival should be ~2-3 miles out, and you have perfectly good separation in they go around. For the rules, check 7110.65, 3-10-5 b http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0310.html#atc0310.html.6.

Got it, thanks.

I'm pretty sure you can't issue a landing clearance unless the aircraft lined up on the same runway has actually taken off, not just been issued a takeoff clearance.

They have to start their take-off roll, not be airborne.

the actual criterion for issuing a landing clearance is that separation is assured.

The phraseology in the question is incorrect.
If the planes on on the same runway without ASDE-X, the aircraft departing will be given:

DELTA 2-7, RUNWAY 1, LINE UP AND WAIT, BOEING 7-2 6-MILE FINAL

The arriving aircraft will not be given a landing clearance until the holding aircraft has departed, but it will be told:

AMERICAN 4-2-9, RUNWAY 1, CONTINUE, TRAFFIC HOLDING IN POSITION

If the planes are on different runways, it would be:

DELTA 2-7, RUNWAY 1, LINE UP AND WAIT, TRAFFIC LANDING RUNWAY 19

and the other

AMERICAN 4-2-9, RUNWAY 1-9, CLEARED TO LAND, TRAFFIC HOLDING IN POSTION RUNWAY 1

Source: Air Traffic Conrollers Handbook, Section 3−9−4. LINE UP AND WAIT (LUAW)


text:
Price of a light weight aircraft that can be owned
I am just an aviation enthusiast and wanted to be a pilot someday..
I just wanted to be able to buy one light aircraft someday..
Can you tell me what would be the price of a light weight aircraft that can be bought?
And also the maintenance charges?
Thank you

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about buying advice and pricing.

well, it is also about maintainance info, you don't get that everywhere..can't the common man know?


text:
Why do we call it a ramp?
Airport ramps are close to level, not inclined.
What is the history and etymology of this aviation term?

If you don't get a good answer here, you might try english.SE

Ramp refers to the area in airport where the aircraft are parked. This term comes from the days of seaplanes. From this site:

The term ‘Ramp‘ traces its roots back to the days of seaplanes when there literally was a ramp from the water to the terminal parking area.

In case of seaplanes, the area is actually an inclined plane between the shore and water. This is similar to the term boat ramp.
Note that this is used mainly in US. The ICAO (and FAA) terminology for the area is Apron.

Follow-up question: why is it called an Apron?

FAA officially uses the term 'ramp,' too. Example.

@Pyritie - it comes from the world of theatre where the Apron is a flat stage jutting out from the main stage. Rare nowadays, but used to be fairly common and had some resemblance to early Airfield aprons back when the runway and apron were newly concreted over a grass field and the "apron" would be a small-ish outcropping of concrete. That usage itself appears to simply come from the fact the shape of the stage looked a bit like an apron when seen from above (by the guys working the lights/sets)

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=618158 - first post by LSLGuy:

The surface used to get seaplanes in and out of the water actually was
  called a "sea plane ramp" since when they were leading edge aviation
  tech. The few survivors are still called "seaplane ramp"s today. And
  the ramp part refered to the fact it's an inclined plane between two
  levels, shore & water.
As sea planes gave way to land planes I'd bet ramp got appropriated
  for the concrete surface in front of the terminal. Remembering this
  was all happening in an era where nothing was paved unless it had to
  be; grass was the default surface for everything.
As to apron ...
Waay back in the day, airports were simply 1/2 mile or 3/4 mile
  squares of flat grass-covered former farm field with a small terminal
  building in one corner. Planes landed & took off on the grass, and
  parked in front of the building to load & unload.
Given the reality of rain & snow, the area in front of the building
  would get muddier faster thatn the rest of the field. Between plane
  traffic, fuel truck traffic, cargo wagon traffic & passengers (&
  horses), churning the surface to mud would be pretty much a sure
  thing.
A pretty obvious innovation would be to pave a more-or-less fan-shaped
  area in front of the building where the airplanes could park.
Which when viewed from above, would look like an apron; a protective
  semi-circular wrap around the working side of a person. Sorta like the
  way the dirt area of a traditional baseball diamond looks with the
  terminal building being at home plate.
My pet peeve in aviation terminology is "tarmac" for the aircraft
  parking area of an airport. Somehow the word finds its way into every
  news article about airline ops.
"Tarmac" is simply a synonym for "asphalt". Back in 1930 or whenever,
  it would have made sense to refer to the paved area as such. "The
  mighty DC-3 pulled up onto the asphalt; soon the crowd would greet the
  celebrities", etc. "Asphalt" in this sentence meaning the paved
  parking area in the otherwise grass airport.
But in 2011? Please newspeople, give "tarmac" the decent burial it
  deserves.
In the business in the US, we call it the ramp. I don't know of anyone
  who uses another term. Some Canadian airports call it the apron.

It's worth noting that "tarmac" being used to refer to asphalt concrete is itself the result of an error.  Tarmac is an abbreviation of "Tar Bound Macadam", which consists of conventional Macadam (layers of crushed stone of carefully graded sizes such that they interlock to form a solid pavement when compacted) over which a tar binder has been applied.


text:
May I enter Class C airspace if I'm told "remain VFR"?
During a flight yesterday, the approach frequency for a local Class C was unusually busy. I was heading back to an underlying Class D and the frequency finally quieted down enough for me to poke in a call of Huntsville Approach, Cessna 123AB, VFR with request.
ATC responded with <identifier>, remain VFR. I am not positive whether he gave the full callsign or just Tree Alpha Bravo — either way, definitely not Aircraft calling. He did not instruct me to remain clear.
I understand that radar advisories are workload permitting for VFR traffic, and clearly ATC had all the workload they could handle. Does that reply establish two-way radio communication and thus permit entry into their Class C airspace, just without flight following? What if the reply had been Tree Alpha Bravo, remain VFR? Assuming it does establish two-way communication, is it good Aeronautical Decision Making to fly into known busy airspace without advisories?
Rather than requesting confirmation on a busy frequency, I descended below the shelf feeling like a scud runner. Approach and landing at the Class D were otherwise uneventful.

Their workload may have nothing to do with the class c airspace busyness. Remember that an ATC facility can control more (a lot more in some cases) air than is typically charted on a sectional; they could be working 5 IFR students at a satellite airport and be unable flight following.

Yes, you were allowed to enter the class C in that case, but you weren't cleared to do it because no clearance is needed to operate in class C, just communication with ATC. The AIM 3-2-4 has the best explanation of this (see also the basic regulation in 14 CFR 91.130):

If the controller responds to a radio call with, “(air craft callsign) standby,” radio communications have been established and the
  pilot can enter the Class C airspace.
If workload or traffic  conditions prevent immediate provision of  Class C services, the controller will inform the pilot to remain
  outside the Class C airspace until conditions permit the services to
  be provided.
It is important to understand that if the controller responds to  the initial radio call without  using the  aircraft identification,
  radio communications have not been established and the pilot may not
  enter the Class C airspace.

So if the controller used your callsign then you've established radio communications and you can enter. This also applies to class D but not to class B, where you need an actual clearance to enter. (This is a classic exam question/scenario, by the way.) As @rbp suggested, the instruction to "maintain VFR" was probably the controller's way of letting you know up front that he was too busy to give you a pop-up IFR clearance or whatever else you might have wanted. (Maintain is an official ATC term, remain is not, although the controller may still have used it accidentally.)
As for flying into busy airspace, it's up to you as PIC to determine what's safe and what isn't. If you had the HSV ATIS (so you can anticipate traffic patterns), were squawking 1200, were in communication with ATC and were keeping your eyes outside the cockpit then there's not too much more you can do (you could turn on all your lights if you think you need to make yourself more visible). But, if you ever feel unsafe or uncomfortable in any flight situation then you shouldn't hesitate to take action - like staying clear of the class C for a few minutes - if you do feel it's necessary, that's simply part of gaining ADM experience.

You have to differentiate between a clearance which has a specific regulatory definition that is covered by numerous FARs, and the regulation which requires you to establish 2-way communication before operating in Class C or Class D.  If you hear your numbers, you have established 2-way communication, and that's it. Its not a clearance, as defined by the FARs.
"Remain VFR" is completely different instruction not related to permission to operate inside the Class C. It is usually given when the controller thinks you might be calling him up to request an IFR or SVFR clearance and he is telling you, in advance, that he can't do it right now.
It is also unfortunate that "remain clear" and "clearance/cleared" both use the same word. But they mean completely different things. "remain clear" has nothing to do with a clearance, but tells you to remain outside the controller's airspace.

Note that, at least in the US, the official phraseology is "Remain Outside". "Remain Clear" is not standard phraseology, though it sounds like you've heard it before.

No clearance is required for VFR Flight in Class C airspace. It is however required to establish two way radio communications (FAR 91.130). The most common interpretation I've come across is that as long as ATC have responded with your callsign, you have established two way radio communications, and are therefore free to enter, unless instructed to remain clear.
I'll leave the discussion about ADM to others, but being unsure of what the ATC response meant, you took the conservative route, based on the information in your post. However, even if ATC is busy, it is very seldom too much to ask for clarification.

that last part is superfluous for Class C and D. if you hear your numbers, you've established 2-way communication, and that is all thats' required. A non-establishment radio call will sound like "Aircraft calling San Jose, remain clear" or "Aircraft calling, standby"

@rbp, technically, I agree, but not for the purpose of clearing out any ambiguities, either due to poor reception, interference, or a vague response. The exchange Greg had is however pretty standard.

Since its not a clearance, you are not obligated under 91.123 to request clarification. I repeat its not a clearance, "confirm clear" doesn't make any sense

You are however per 91.123b obligated in controlled airspace not to operate in contrary to ATC instructions. For this purpose, if you did not understand ATCs last transmission, it would be prudent to ask for clarification.

This is not an issue of ambiguity in the controller's transmission -- this is a clear case of @greg bacon not understanding the regulations.  Also, 91.123 says When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.  That's not an instruction.  There is no obligation to clarify an instruction, although its prudent.


text:
What is the difference between thrust and lift?
I calculated the thrust and power of the helicopter to hover above the surface, but I'm not sure if I calculated correctly. I've already asked a similar question, but I've moved on, and there are more questions.
Is it possible to use the formula of the thrust equation for a helicopter on Venus?
Initial data:
$
W = 300\text{ kg},
\rho = 65~\frac{\text{kg}}{\text{m}^3},
C_\text{T} = 0.028,
N_\text{rotors} = 1.
$
Suppose that:
$
\omega = 300\text{ rpm} = 31.415\text{ rad/s}; R = 1\text{ m}.
$
Now let's calculate remembering that Helicopter has 1 rotor
$T =1 \cdot \frac12 \cdot65(31.415\cdot1)^2 \pi 1^2 \cdot 0.028 = 2925\text{ N}$
I calculated the power according to this formula for hovering the helicopter outside the "ground effect".
I used instead of $L$, thrust $T = 2925\text{ N}$. Is this correct, or should I use $L=m \cdot g$? I did it with a thrust of $T, P = 9789\text{ N}$. I can't figure out if that's a lot or a little. What does $L=m \cdot g$ mean then, I have $L = 300 \cdot 8.87 = 2661 \text{ N}$. What is the difference between $T = 2925 \text{ N}$ and $L = 2661 \text{ N}$? And the following question arises: from what height does the "ground effect" cease to act and how to calculate it when it acts?

A note: in your linked question you computed T = 2820 N but here you list it as 2925.

@randomhead Thanks, I fixed the bug.

In the aerospace world, the word "thrust" is used when describing the lifting/pushing force generated by a rotor, a propeller or a rocket engine. The term "lift" is used when dealing with wings/fuselages/empennages/control surfaces.
Note that, being the blades of a rotor/propeller also termed "rotating wings", the lifting force that each of them generates is also called "lift"; anyway their sum (normally acting at the center of the rotor/propeller) is called "thrust".
In your specific case, the maximum thrust $T$ generated by the rotor must be bigger than the weight $mg$ of your helicopter $T\geq mg$ so that your rotor is able to make the helicopter not only hover but also climb.

Hello. If it's not too much trouble, could you answer my previous question here? I sent you the density, viscosity and speed of sound in the atmosphere of Venus, as you asked. Unfortunately, my previous question was deleted (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/106981/87892).

$mg$ is how much thrust the helicopter needs to hover at zero airspeed. Any less thrust and it will accelerate downwards and any more thrust and it will accelerate upwards.
The other formula you used is to calculate the thrust that the rotor can provide given a certain rpm and other rotor properties. Since that number is bigger than $mg$, the helicopter would accelerate upwards if a rotor with those properties were spun at 300 rpm.


text:
Question about runup area surface markings
Attached is a google earth image of a runup area. Are aircraft supposed to do their runup in the area between the dashed yellow lines? Or are they supposed to do their runup behind the second dashed line (the one with smaller spacing). I tried looking for an answer in the AIM and the PHAK but couldn't find anything.
This is the Salisbury - Ocean City airport, SBY.

I'm not completely sure because the aerial view isn't detailed enough, but from context I believe the second/smaller dashed line is the movement area boundary.
Observe similar lines all around the terminal/ramp area of the airport: Along Taxiway A in front of the main terminal. On Taxiways C and D short of Taxiway A. On the compass-rose pad short of Taxiway C. Et cetera.
The widely-spaced dashed yellow line is the edge of the taxiway itself. Aircraft doing a runup should pull completely clear of that line so they don't block other aircraft which may not need a runup. It is not necessary to continue all the way across the other dashed line.

From what I understand, the marking for a movement area boundary has a solid yellow line adjacent to a dashed yellow line. You can see other movement area boundary lines separating the apron/hanger area from the taxiways connected to it at this airport

Perhaps it's there as a "don't taxi past here" caution to provide margin for wingtip clearance with the fence just past the paved area in the grass.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5340-1M-Chg-1-Airport-Markings.pdf is a good resource, especially see section 5.4 and Figure A-15 @randomhead.


text:
How did Charles Lindbergh use dead reckoning over the Atlantic ocean?
Wikipedia and other sources assert that Charles Lindbergh used dead reckoning on his historic flight from Long Island to Paris but—likely being aimed at a broader audience—are short on specific technical details.
With few or no landmarks to use as references, how was Lindbergh able to stay on course while over the Atlantic ocean?

compass, and the sun's position and clock will allow you to maintain a decent heading

The article about dead reckoning has good explanation if you read it completely.

I don't think he used dead reckoning. He made it I think, didn't he?

@TylerDurden How's that working out for you, being clever?

Good, I crack me up. Happiness is being able to laugh at your own jokes.

It's actually "ded" reckoning (short for deduced), and it doesn't involve landmarks, it is simply flying a heading for a certain amount of time, that's it.  When you start adding in landmarks and things, that is called "pilotage."
Typically, visual navigation over land is mostly pilotage, with a bit of ded reckoning occasionally.  When you get over the water, like Charles Lindbergh, you do mostly ded reckoning.  When you do have a chance to use a landmark, you can update your location and basically restart your ded reckoning from a known point.  Lindbergh also used the stars to update his position and based new ded reckoning tracks on those positions.

The world's smartest man looked into the etymology of Dead Reckoning

Wow. I didn't know that. I always thought it was from "if you don't reckon right, you're dead."

Lindbergh had only an induction compass, clock, and drift sigh for navigation.
He plotted out a great circle route that was broken into 100 mile, straight segments.
Using the drift sight he could determine ground speed. With the clock he could determine distance and course. The compass gave heading.
Every 100 miles he would have to make a course change.


text:
What is the gray zigzag line over V154 between Dublin VORTAC and LOTTS intersection?
Above Victor airway 154 on the IFR enroute low altitude chart, there is a grey zigzag line between Dublin VORTAC and LOTTS intersection.
What does the gray zigzag over the segment indicate?

Credit: SkyVector

According to the “Airspace Information” section of FAA Aeronautical Chart User’s Guide, it is a low-altitude unusable route. The high-altitude flavor is similar in shape with a smaller amplitude.
See also page 62 of the Guide PDF, if you prefer.

UNUSABLE ROUTE

In this particular case, observe the overprint on 110 in the compass rose surrounding DBN, which indicates abnormal status. The Airport/Facility Directory entry for Dublin VORTAC (as of the 31 MAR 2016 publication) reads, with added emphasis:

DUBLIN N32°33.81′ W82°49.80′ NOTAM FILE MCN.
    (L) VORTAC
   113.1   DBN   Chan 78   276º 7.9 NM to W H 'Bud' Barron. 306/5W.
  HIWAS.
      VOR portion unusable:
        215°–285° byd 10 NM blo 3,500’
        001°–139° byd 33 NM
        001°–139° blo 5,000’
  RCO
   122.1R 122.6 113.1T (MACON RADIO)

Note that the DBN 110 radial falls within the 001-139° unusable range. Beyond LOTTS intersection, V154 is defined with reference to the Savannah VORTAC.

What might make the route unusable? Why would it be marked out rather than removed?

Why does the route exist if its unusable?  What is it that makes it unusable?

My guess as to why it's still there is to make it obvious to someone who might be familiar with the area from the past that the route did exist in the past but now should not be used.

Is there a relation between the loss of reception and the two different radii of the VORTAC rose?

It would appear, according to this that they deleted that segment and raised the MEA for the LOTTS-SAV segment to 3000 ft due to towers built within the airway borders. Magic 98.1 has a tower 1.5 nm N of OCONE. And there's a cell tower 4.6nm NE of LOTTS

Okay, what about an aircraft with an IFR-approved GPS? Can that aircraft file & fly that portion of V-154?

@RalphJ: See the (new) linked question for this aspect.

@TomMcW: Why did the FAA allow the construction of towers that would obstruct air navigation?

@Sean I don't know. It was approved by the FAA in 2002 and built in 2004. The study that eliminated the route segment was not done until 2012. If you really want to know why they approved it in this specific case the FAA study that approved the tower is 02-ASO-1199-OE. I can't find that online anywhere. Not sure if they archived stuff online that far back.


text:
In the U.S., what are the requirements for being an Executive airport?
Are there statutory or regulatory criteria for a facility to be called, say, Elbonia Executive Airport as opposed to County, Municipal, Regional, Field, or something else? Is it strictly marketing?

This is a marketing distinction -- generally applied to a major GA reliever airport designed to serve light/business jets in design categories B-II and C-II or perhaps C-III.  This is distinguished from general purpose GA relievers as a light GA reliever may be designed to service a maximum design category of A-II, B-I, or B-II; it is also distinguished from County, Municipal, or Regional airports as while they are similarly sized in terms of design category, a County, Municipal, or Regional airport is the primary airport for that area as opposed to being a reliever for a larger scheduled service airport.

Can you clarify these categories?

I added a link to clarify the categories.


text:
Do hours flying "advanced ultralight" aircraft contribute towards your license in Canada?
I'm interested in the business possibilities of offering flight training in Southern Ontario, in particular using advanced ultralight aircraft. I realize that this is uncommon, of course, but my question is one of regulations.
How many hours flying an advanced ultralight aircraft can count towards a student's:

Recreational license?
Personal license?
Commercial license?

I'm not sure how to read the CARs here in 421. Would a Pipistrel Alpha Electro (classified as an Advanced Ultralight in Canada) or Pipistrel Velis count as "aeroplane"?

It looks like you can count the flight hours towards a recreational license if you logged the hours in an advanced ultralight with an aeroplane certificate of airworthiness.
For the private pilot license only 10 hours in three-axis ultralights can be counted.
For a commercial ticket a maximum of 25 hours pilot-in-command flight time in three axis ultra-light aeroplanes can be counted towards the 200 hours total flight time requirement but this time does not count towards the 100 hour pilot-in-command flight time.
This is based on my cursory reading of the requirements. I would suggest you talk to a reputable flight training organization or Canadian aviation authorities for confirmation.


text:
Do pilots have their own in-flight entertainment?
Besides flying the plane and talking to the person in the other seat, what other forms of entertainment are (also legally) available to pilots while on the job?
I'm thinking of 'activities' like reading, listening to music, watching a movie, or... playing a flight simulator game on a laptop.

They can play traditional word games with each other https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJSey8HRUhU

It is the moment when at LHR ATC calls in "YourFlight , clear for straight in approach. You are number one."

The last thing made me remember the FSX: Steam Edition Trailer.

"playing a flight simulator game on a laptop" What could possibly go wrong?

They make their own entertainment - https://9gag.com/gag/aGV074w/turbulence-a-far-side-story

@VladimirF My little eye spies something beginning with S... :D

Why would you play a flight simulator when you could use the real thing?

I am not aware of any legal requirements, but rules may differ according to the country of jurisdiction.
Generally it is up to the company that a pilot works for to establish their own rules to cover "in-flight entertainment" in the flight deck. Most companies do not allow it. It has been my experience that the rules are generally ignored and common sense rules are used instead.
During non-critical phases of flight, pilots will often read newspapers, books, iPads etc. Many will do crossword puzzles or Sudoku. A few will even listen to music or watch a video, but it is pretty rare.
In 40 years of flying, I can't recall ever seeing a pilot play a video game or flight simulator.

The thought of a pilot playing a flight simulator while flying a plane made me laugh.

I can't even imagine a pilot confusing the game and the real life :D

Seeing this:
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4219f00f&opt=2560
one could argue that there need to be some sort of entertainment to keep them alert and awake

@Tyzoid Anecdote: some 20 years ago I used to play the PC game “Wing Commander” to the excess. After a long gaming session I took my car to run some errands. There was some obstacle on the road, I cannot remember exactly, perhaps it was just a slow car or something. So just pulled on my car's steering wheel to hop over that other car. :-D Fortunately I realised my mistake in time and pushed the brakes. Apparently I was still completely engrossed in the game.

@Tyzoid:  "OMG flying 747s is SOO boring.  I'm'a play my 737 sim, lemme know with it's time to start landing checklist..."

For Part 91 flight operations, many pilots will listen to the radio or music.  I have often listened to songs on my iPhone music library fed through an aux jack into my headset.  And many IFDs and integrated GNSS navigation systems often offer XM weather and XM Radio services through subscription that pilots will use to listen to XM radio, as this SR-22 pilot making a flight out to Camarillo, CA does.

One older option, if the aircraft is equipped with a functioning ADF, is that, since NDBs broadcast in the kilohertz range, pilots can tune an ADF into AM radio stations and put it through to their headsets using the audio panel.  The ADF needle will point in the direction of the AM radio transmission tower for that station.  AM stations that are tracked this way can be used as a supplemental navaid in VFR operations but are not approved as terrestrial navaids for IFR operations.
Use of visual entertainment such as movies, television programs, video games, etc., is not allowed for a flight crew as they are required to maintain visual scanning outside the aircraft, if able, for situational awareness and collision avoidance.
I can't speak for Part 121 or Part 135 operations but I'd venture a guess that such activity is frowned upon by employers during flight operations.  But I'm sure many a 747 or A380 crew over the Pacific at FL410 with another 9.5 hours to go before making Kingsford Smith Intl will listen to the radio or take turns watching outside of the aircraft while the other flight crewmember reads a book or relaxes.
It is important to limit these activities to low workload phases of the flight such as long stretches of cruise in low density airspace and maintain a sterile cockpit during attention intensive phases such as takeoff, departure, approach and landing.  I will only listen the the radio in cruise and use is terminated at least 10 minutes before a planned descent begins.  A pilot should do a realistic self assessment of his/her flying abilities and refrain from the use of these things if they have difficulties with multitasking or are easily distracted from the airmanship tasks at hand.
 Use of entertainment products during emergencies is unacceptable as well.

Imagine the only Navaid in your vicinity is the transmission tower of a radio station you hate and the audio button in your cockpit broke...

As long as you're not using your ADF to tune in the football game

I can't speak to current practices as I retired in 1999, but as one who who spent a lot of time in 747s above FL350 over the Pacific and inbound to to Kingsford Smith, your sentence about taking turns watching outside did not apply back then. We never maintained an outside watch. Any weather ahead would be picked up by the radar long before seeing it meant anything, and you basically cannot see other aircraft. That is not to say we never looked outside, but simply that there was no safety requirement to do so on a regular basis.

Having been a couple of times at the flight deck myself I have seen and asked pilots a similar question. The pilots have to routinely monitor the instruments so playing a game reading a book or watching a movie imposes a high risk on "forgetting time" so the pilots I spoke did not do this. They spend quite some time on the flight monitoring part, communicating with ATC and OCC adjusting their course. Then you have the occasional flight attendant visiting the flight deck who stays for a chat or brings food. Newspapers are also read and provide food for conversations and if there is enough staff they can make a short walk though the cabin.

well of course, that's what they SAY...

Interesting question.
I work for an In-flight Entertainment company and none of our in-seat video systems have ever included anything for the pilot to interact with, other than the PA-system.  With the PA-system they can entertain themselves with knowing that they're pausing all passenger entertainment for the duration of their prolonged speech.
Now for our new WiFi based entertainment systems, there's nothing to stop a pilot with a PED (Portable Electronic Device) from connecting to the entertainment system like a passenger.  Personally I would hope a pilot would never do this.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава